Who is happy with new wolf law?

Do you think governor Little should have signed the new wolf law?

  • Yes

    Votes: 32 76.2%
  • No

    Votes: 10 23.8%

  • Total voters
    42
  • Poll closed .

BrianID

Very Active Member
Messages
2,148
For those of you that were unaware of this, below is a link to a news story.


Do you think that Wyoming and Montana will follow Idaho on this?

My guess is that Wyoming will do something similar. I'm sure it will be debated in Montana as well. Montana will likely end up doing something similar but it may be a little more conservative and they may not act as rapidly as Wyoming. I'm sure that many ranchers and hunters in Washington, Oregon, Nevada and Utah will appreciate Idaho taking aggressive action that will decrease the rate of wolf spill over from Idaho to their state.
 
When we were working on getting a hunting season for Wolves here in Idaho, these same farmers that are running the game and fish now, were afraid to Evan confront the radical Wolf lovers, so was the Fish and Game. The Sportsman did it all in a Grass Roots movement that went write around them and straight to the capitol.You become a lot better hunter once you’ve figured out Wolves
 
I'm 100% in favor of reducing the numbers, but I'm sick of ALL of our F&G decisions being made by ranchers for ranchers.
I don't think the bill would have been signed if it didn't include domestic livestock. It's a win for Idaho, either way.
 
Initially, I was in favor of this bill as I see wolves as the destructive part of nature that they are without any real viable means of control, naturally, aside from a losing all viable food sources which we know will never happen. However, the IWF came out with a statement a couple days ago which shed a different light on the matter which I had not considered and now I'm a little up in the air on this one. I generally trust IWF over ANY politician ANY DAY and I do see their point regarding allowing politicians(or in this case farmers) to exercise control and legislation over our game and fish regulations. Their point is "where will it end?" Farmers and ranchers already have too much power over our government legislators and there's no question in my mind that Little signed this bill so readily because of all his rancher cronies. I just hope that the sporting public sees this dangerous precedent and acts swiftly and forcefully should the farmers/ranchers decide they want to start dictating other wildlife laws. They've already closed down forest roads and access into public lands, changed trespassing laws, and now dictated wolf legislation. What will be next?

 
Initially, I was in favor of this bill as I see wolves as the destructive part of nature that they are without any real viable means of control, naturally, aside from a losing all viable food sources which we know will never happen. However, the IWF came out with a statement a couple days ago which shed a different light on the matter which I had not considered and now I'm a little up in the air on this one. I generally trust IWF over ANY politician ANY DAY and I do see their point regarding allowing politicians(or in this case farmers) to exercise control and legislation over our game and fish regulations. Their point is "where will it end?" Farmers and ranchers already have too much power over our government legislators and there's no question in my mind that Little signed this bill so readily because of all his rancher cronies. I just hope that the sporting public sees this dangerous precedent and acts swiftly and forcefully should the farmers/ranchers decide they want to start dictating other wildlife laws. They've already closed down forest roads and access into public lands, changed trespassing laws, and now dictated wolf legislation. What will be next?

My point exactly.
 
Without the use of poison they could sign a law to kill 100% of them but it won’t happen because their harder to kill than most people realize, especially after they’ve been hunted and trapped for a few years.
 
Initially, I was in favor of this bill as I see wolves as the destructive part of nature that they are without any real viable means of control, naturally, aside from a losing all viable food sources which we know will never happen. However, the IWF came out with a statement a couple days ago which shed a different light on the matter which I had not considered and now I'm a little up in the air on this one. I generally trust IWF over ANY politician ANY DAY and I do see their point regarding allowing politicians(or in this case farmers) to exercise control and legislation over our game and fish regulations. Their point is "where will it end?" Farmers and ranchers already have too much power over our government legislators and there's no question in my mind that Little signed this bill so readily because of all his rancher cronies. I just hope that the sporting public sees this dangerous precedent and acts swiftly and forcefully should the farmers/ranchers decide they want to start dictating other wildlife laws. They've already closed down forest roads and access into public lands, changed trespassing laws, and now dictated wolf legislation. What will be next?

Nailed it.
 
Mallards_Only,

Excellent points. I also don't trust politicians very much. Doesn't matter if they have a D or an R next to their name. I don't like them dictating wildlife policies. However, the politicians in Idaho overall are better than the politicians in Colorado. Just incase any of you were unaware, Colorado legislator is mandating rapid reintroduction of none native wolves to their state.

In some way this is a way of Idaho politicians flipping a middle finger at the feds. They are not going to drive the wolf population down to 150 animals in one year. My guess is they will attempted to keep the wolf population around 300 animals so they have a large buffer to keep the feds out. The wolf population without a doubt needs to be reduced in Idaho.
 
Montana is doing essentially the same thing with a population objective of 150. Difference is MT likes their money, so it will be unlimited licenses instead of old 3 cap. Montana ranchers have been reimbursing successful wolf hunters for fuel and supplies, much like idaho, in order to usurp "bounty" laws. Ranchers by and large are your friends folks. If you think they have the power, engage them in an open honest conversation. Complaing about the handful that politicians suck up to is a waste of time. Go to local Farm Bureau/Stock grower meetings, heck even join. Good people that listen and care. Agriculture lobbying groups do have a giant voice locally, in your state capital, and D.C. Be part of that voice.
 
Initially, I was in favor of this bill as I see wolves as the destructive part of nature that they are without any real viable means of control, naturally, aside from a losing all viable food sources which we know will never happen. However, the IWF came out with a statement a couple days ago which shed a different light on the matter which I had not considered and now I'm a little up in the air on this one. I generally trust IWF over ANY politician ANY DAY and I do see their point regarding allowing politicians(or in this case farmers) to exercise control and legislation over our game and fish regulations. Their point is "where will it end?" Farmers and ranchers already have too much power over our government legislators and there's no question in my mind that Little signed this bill so readily because of all his rancher cronies. I just hope that the sporting public sees this dangerous precedent and acts swiftly and forcefully should the farmers/ranchers decide they want to start dictating other wildlife laws. They've already closed down forest roads and access into public lands, changed trespassing laws, and now dictated wolf legislation. What will be next?

It's amazing to me that this is a us vs. them thing, between ranchers and outdoorsmen. These groups came together for a good purpose, and now the inner fighting. Most ranchers that I know, belong and contribute to these types of wildlife conservation groups.
 
It's amazing to me that this is a us vs. them thing, between ranchers and outdoorsmen. These groups came together for a good purpose, and now the inner fighting. Most ranchers that I know, belong and contribute to these types of wildlife conservation groups.
I agree that ranchers and hunters should be friends. Unfortunately there have been some situations in Idaho that ranchers have burned hunters recently. There are also a few scum hunters that cut fences, trespass, etc. Most hunters and ranchers get along well but there are a few on each side that cause problems.
 
Mallards_Only,

Excellent points. I also don't trust politicians very much. Doesn't matter if they have a D or an R next to their name. I don't like them dictating wildlife policies. However, the politicians in Idaho overall are better than the politicians in Colorado. Just incase any of you were unaware, Colorado legislator is mandating rapid reintroduction of none native wolves to their state.

In some way this is a way of Idaho politicians flipping a middle finger at the feds. They are not going to drive the wolf population down to 150 animals in one year. My guess is they will attempted to keep the wolf population around 300 animals so they have a large buffer to keep the feds out. The wolf population without a doubt needs to be reduced in Idaho.
Wolves are native to Colorado. And before you say these wolves are those super wolves from Canada just stop. Wolves don’t recognize borders.
 
There were never super wolves, we just got Canada’s problem Wolves. I agree that Ranchers, Farmers and Sportsman should work together, but somehow the Farmers thought they would take over the show. I take Wolf hunting seriously and can buy 15 tags a year, this is a joke the farmer legislators declared war on Wolves when 95% of them couldn’t kill a wolf it was tied up in there barn. They will not take out 95% of the Wolves, or 60%, or 40%, maybe 30% if sportsman get serious about hunting them. Maybe we should get a few Sportsman on the F&G Commission and work together on all wildlife issues.
 
Going back to the bill, it reads "backed by hunters and the state's powerful ranching sector". So they both did work together. The press is really pushing the narrative that it's really about the ranchers and their livestock. I don't know Idaho law, but I would guess that a "problem wolf" can be shot now by F&G or the rancher. I think the bill is still a win-win for those in Idaho that want to hunt wolves.
But I agree, it took poison to wipe them ou the first time, hunting isn't going to control them this time.
 
Are these private contractors they are hiring paid out of Fish and game dollars, or are the Feds liable for paying the bill, which is still our tax dollars. Colorado wants to go through this, they really should add up the money.
 
Going back to the bill, it reads "backed by hunters and the state's powerful ranching sector". So they both did work together. The press is really pushing the narrative that it's really about the ranchers and their livestock. I don't know Idaho law, but I would guess that a "problem wolf" can be shot now by F&G or the rancher. I think the bill is still a win-win for those in Idaho that want to hunt wolves.
But I agree, it took poison to wipe them ou the first time, hunting isn't going to control them this time.
Wolves have basically had an open season on them for several years now. Even classifying them the same as coyotes with no tag required and a 365 day season with night hunting wouldn’t make a significant difference in the amount of wolves killed in Idaho. Aerial gunning has been used for years in Idaho to remove problem packs of wolves.

This bill will fund aerial gunning to drastically decrease the population state wide. I think the ranchers should pay for 50% of it but from what I can tell it is going to be funded by hunting licenses and tags.
 
Are these private contractors they are hiring paid out of Fish and game dollars, or are the Feds liable for paying the bill, which is still our tax dollars. Colorado wants to go through this, they really should add up the money.
From what I understand is that hunting license dollars are being used to fund this. For years it has been hunters paying for a majority of the wolf management in Idaho.
 
Since wolves don’t know boarders and all wolves are the same, Colorado should just transplant the “Mexican wolves” from AZ and NM then.
That’s one way of admitting you’re wrong. You went full Karen there.
 
Only way they're gonna make an impact on the population is through aerial eradication. Hunters will never get the population down alone. There aren't enough guys targeting them and they're too tough to kill.
Aerial is only effective in parts of the state that are open enough to see them. They need to utilize all effective methods to eradicate them.
 
That’s one way of admitting you’re wrong. You went full Karen there.
Just shows how ignorant you are on the issue if you don’t understand the difference between the “Canadian wolves” and “Mexican wolves”
Adding additional wolves to Colorado is a complete waste of time and money. The ones that are there now and additional wolves that will spill into Colorado will establish a robust wolf population with 10 years if locals don’t do anything for n there own to slow the spread.
 
What ranchers in Idaho rely on government handouts? If they weren't doing their job, you wouldn't eat or get all of the tax dollars they generate. I'd also guess they spend more on wildlife conservation than anyone else in Idaho.

I'm referring specifically to ranchers that graze on public land. I have no problem with ranchers who only graze on private land. Although, some ranch properties are ridiculously huge (Simplot types) and with the finite amount of land out west there's a moral conflict about how much land one person should be able to own. But that's a libertarian/philosophical debate not meant for here.

As for wolves, I say just make them open season year round with free tags and let nature do the rest. If you have a private ranch, I'm sure there are plenty of feasible deterrents and ways to stop wolves from crossing fences. If you graze on public land, that's your choice. Just because it's a tradition doesn't mean we have to pay you for your cows or to pay to kill your wolves.
 
Just shows how ignorant you are on the issue if you don’t understand the difference between the “Canadian wolves” and “Mexican wolves”
Adding additional wolves to Colorado is a complete waste of time and money. The ones that are there now and additional wolves that will spill into Colorado will establish a robust wolf population with 10 years if locals don’t do anything for n there own to slow the spread.
You’re the one being ignorant saying wolves are not native to colorado. It’s ok you’re a slow learner. You’ll get there.
 
Aerial is only effective in parts of the state that are open enough to see them. They need to utilize all effective methods to eradicate them.
Aerial can be effective statewide. It is more difficult in steep areas with thick trees and brush but it has been done numerous times. Just need snow on the ground and favorable weather conditions. They have effective removed multiple packs and problem wolves aerial many times in Idaho in multiple terrain types. $$$, weather and political correctness are the biggest limitation on aerial removal of wolves.
 
Aerial can be effective statewide. It is more difficult in steep areas with thick trees and brush but it has been done numerous times. Just need snow on the ground and favorable weather conditions. They have effective removed multiple packs and problem wolves aerial many times in Idaho in multiple terrain types. $$$, weather and political correctness are the biggest limitation on aerial removal of wolves.
You know this how? How much experience do you have with aerial gunning? Not to mention downdrafts etc when navigating with planes, helicopters. Good luck shotgunning through thick brush and trees. You have no idea what you’re talking about. Probably haven’t even been in a super cub or helicopter!
 
You’re the one being ignorant saying wolves are not native to colorado. It’s ok you’re a slow learner. You’ll get there.

My exact quote that you targeted was "Colorado legislator is mandating rapid reintroduction of none native wolves to their state."

You then said "And before you say these wolves are those super wolves from Canada just stop."

I do think the Canadian wolves are different wolves than the wolves that were native to Idaho and Colorado. Just like I think the moose from Northern Canada and Alaska are different moose than are native to Idaho and Colorado.

We both agree that wolves don't know man made boundaries and will travel just like wolves have for thousands of years. Wolves have already moving into Colorado on their own.

I have two simple questions for you if you want to debate. If you want to just call names, that is a waste of time.

#1 Do you agree that it is a waste of money adding additional wolves to Colorado as liberals plan?

#2 Do you agree that the "Mexican Wolves" in AZ and NM are a different animal than the "Canadian Wolves" in Idaho?
 
You know this how? How much experience do you have with aerial gunning? Not to mention downdrafts etc when navigating with planes, helicopters. Good luck shotgunning through thick brush and trees. You have no idea what you’re talking about. Probably haven’t even been in a super cub or helicopter!
You don't even seem to understand the history of wolves in the greater Yellowstone area or the Gila in NM and AZ.

I'll answer your question though but it is fair for you to answer the same question you ask me. Have you ever participate in aerial gunning?

I have not personal taken part in aerial gunning but have been in multiple small planes in Alaska and know how dangerous aerial gunning is. Personally I wouldn't want to take part in it in favorable weather and flat terrain. I do know about several packs of wolves that were removed in very difficult terrain in Idaho by aerial gunning and have talked with people that have aerial gunned many coyotes. The Idaho F&G has minimized talking about all the aerial gunned wolves they have killed because they know many people don't have political tolerance for it.
 
As for wolves, I say just make them open season year round with free tags and let nature do the rest.

It has basically been a year round open season for wolves for several years. Ranchers in Idaho have been able to shoot wolves on sight for years now. Even if they were managed the same as coyotes are in Idaho, I doubt it would make any significant increase in the number of wolves killed. Trappers have been much more effective than guys trying to kill wolves with their gun.
 
Wyoming has a shoot on sight, treat as if a coyote in all areas of the state, except those bordering the Park if I am not mistaken. They held out and didn’t back down to the feds. That policy still has hardly slowed the spread of the mangy wolves. Destructive bastards.
 
My exact quote that you targeted was "Colorado legislator is mandating rapid reintroduction of none native wolves to their state."

You then said "And before you say these wolves are those super wolves from Canada just stop."

I do think the Canadian wolves are different wolves than the wolves that were native to Idaho and Colorado. Just like I think the moose from Northern Canada and Alaska are different moose than are native to Idaho and Colorado.

We both agree that wolves don't know man made boundaries and will travel just like wolves have for thousands of years. Wolves have already moving into Colorado on their own.

I have two simple questions for you if you want to debate. If you want to just call names, that is a waste of time.

#1 Do you agree that it is a waste of money adding additional wolves to Colorado as liberals plan?

#2 Do you agree that the "Mexican Wolves" in AZ and NM are a different animal than the "Canadian Wolves" in Idaho?
Why do you assume it’s liberals only? That right there shows how biased you are. But I support the decision to reintroduce wolves back in to Colorado. The majority of CO wanted it. It went to a vote, fair enough. It was close so I would be ok with tabling it for a bit and voting again. Maybe make it where it has to pass by 2/3? Probably not legal though. I also support reintroduction of grizzly bears it that ever comes up.

2). I’m not sure why you’re asking number 2? Of course they are a subspecies. They are smaller for sure. Not sure why you think they are not? They basically look like big coyotes.
 
If you want to waste money on introducing additional wolves to Colorado then you are a liberal fool. It is a total waste of money.
 
2). I’m not sure why you’re asking number 2? Of course they are a subspecies. They are smaller for sure. Not sure why you think they are not? They basically look like big coyotes.

You were mocking me for saying that the "Canadian Wolves" in Idaho are the same as what the native wolves were in Colorado. I was giving you an example that not all wolves are the same by comparing the "Mexican Wolves" to the "Canadian wolves"
 
You don't even seem to understand the history of wolves in the greater Yellowstone area or the Gila in NM and AZ.

I'll answer your question though but it is fair for you to answer the same question you ask me. Have you ever participate in aerial gunning?

I have not personal taken part in aerial gunning but have been in multiple small planes in Alaska and know how dangerous aerial gunning is. Personally I wouldn't want to take part in it in favorable weather and flat terrain. I do know about several packs of wolves that were removed in very difficult terrain in Idaho by aerial gunning and have talked with people that have aerial gunned many coyotes. The Idaho F&G has minimized talking about all the aerial gunned wolves they have killed because they know many people don't have political tolerance for it.
How is aerial gunning dangerous? I’m about to jump in a plane next week with a friend who has killed hundreds of wolves with a plane. He doesn’t think it’s dangerous at all. But you can’t kill them in thick trees or brush. It’s not possible. They have to get them in the open. Even with helicopters. I do not participate in aerial gunning because I’m actually against it. Also the permits are very hard to get but 3 of my friends do have them. Also I don’t feel like we should shoot one species from a plane to increase the population of another. If you think for one second they are shooting wolves from the air in steep country like some portions of ID you are wrong. Guaranteed. It’s ok you don’t have the experience and don’t know anyone that actually does it. I get it. But don’t go posting about what you don’t know about like it’s facts.

many a coyote gets shot from the air in easy country to fly that’s probably never ate a fawn in its life. It’s a feel good measure to go out in the rolling sage and knock a few coyotes down with a plane. The rabbit population thanks them!
 
The "Mexican Wolves" are more endangered than the "Canadian Wolves" so we should put "Mexican Wolves" in Colorado. We really don't know exactly what wolves were native to Colorado anyway.
 
You were mocking me for saying that the "Canadian Wolves" in Idaho are the same as what the native wolves were in Colorado. I was giving you an example that not all wolves are the same by comparing the "Mexican Wolves" to the "Canadian wolves"
No, you said non native wolves. Wolves were native to Colorado. Do you not read or believe what you type?
 
If you want to waste money on introducing additional wolves to Colorado then you are a liberal fool. It is a total waste of money.
There are worst things to waste money on than wolves. Colorado can afford it. It will be ok.
 
Wyoming has a shoot on sight, treat as if a coyote in all areas of the state, except those bordering the Park if I am not mistaken. They held out and didn’t back down to the feds. That policy still has hardly slowed the spread of the mangy wolves. Destructive bastards.
Yeah it’s terrible in WYOMING. You can only shoot THREE elk a year there. Those damn wolves have ate all the elk! Nothing but wolf tracks in huge areas, NO elk sign! They killed them all! They must be living off hopes and dreams!
 
How is aerial gunning dangerous? I’m about to jump in a plane next week with a friend who has killed hundreds of wolves with a plane. He doesn’t think it’s dangerous at all. But you can’t kill them in thick trees or brush. It’s not possible. They have to get them in the open. Even with helicopters. I do not participate in aerial gunning because I’m actually against it. Also the permits are very hard to get but 3 of my friends do have them. Also I don’t feel like we should shoot one species from a plane to increase the population of another. If you think for one second they are shooting wolves from the air in steep country like some portions of ID you are wrong. Guaranteed. It’s ok you don’t have the experience and don’t know anyone that actually does it. I get it. But don’t go posting about what you don’t know about like it’s facts.

many a coyote gets shot from the air in easy country to fly that’s probably never ate a fawn in its life. It’s a feel good measure to go out in the rolling sage and knock a few coyotes down with a plane.

I do think aerial gunning is dangerous. It can be done in a way to minimize the danger but it still isn't safe. If your friend has killed hundreds of wolves from a plane and you have spent significant time in small aircraft in Alaska, then between the two of you, I'm sure you at least know one person that has died while flying a small plane.

I think you have every right to be against aerial gunning from an ethics point of view if you wish.

They have been effectively removing target wolf packs in rugged country in Idaho for years. I will agree that it isn' easy to get them from the air in certain places but I do think that aerial gunning could put a serious dent in the Idaho wolf population as long as political tolerance and $$$ were not limiting factors.

I agree that shooting just a few coyotes with a plane is more of a "feel good measure" than effective predator control. I've been killing about 50 coyotes a year and have witnessed "Mexican wolves" and "Canadian wolves" in the wild. I have great respect for these animals. I just may disagree with you on how they should be managed.
 
I do think aerial gunning is dangerous. It can be done in a way to minimize the danger but it still isn't safe. If your friend has killed hundreds of wolves from a plane and you have spent significant time in small aircraft in Alaska, then between the two of you, I'm sure you at least know one person that has died while flying a small plane.

I think you have every right to be against aerial gunning from an ethics point of view if you wish.

They have been effectively removing target wolf packs in rugged country in Idaho for years. I will agree that it isn' easy to get them from the air in certain places but I do think that aerial gunning could put a serious dent in the Idaho wolf population as long as political tolerance and $$$ were not limiting factors.

I agree that shooting just a few coyotes with a plane is more of a "feel good measure" than effective predator control. I've been killing about 50 coyotes a year and have witnessed "Mexican wolves" and "Canadian wolves" in the wild. I have great respect for these animals. I just may disagree with you on how they should be managed.
I can respect a lot of your points. With ever increasing limited resources like ungulates if they are going to shoot some to help out so be it. As long as they can do it in a responsible manner that doesn’t jeopardize the population enough to endanger them I can’t really say much on the matter.

I too averaged 50 to 60 coyotes a winter back in my predator hunting days. Now I let all of them live. I can’t bring myself to shoot something I can’t eat and to kill something just because it’s my perceived competition.
 
There are worst things to waste money on than wolves. Colorado can afford it. It will be ok.
I agree there are worst things our government wastes money on than wolves. I still believe it is a total waste of money to add additional wolves to Colorado. It is more of a "feel good measure" just like shooting a handful of coyotes from a plane because a rancher had some sheep killed by some coyotes.
 
Are these private contractors they are hiring paid out of Fish and game dollars, or are the Feds liable for paying the bill, which is still our tax dollars. Colorado wants to go through this, they really should add up the money.
Fish & game foots,the bill for it
 
Wyoming has a shoot on sight, treat as if a coyote in all areas of the state, except those bordering the Park if I am not mistaken. They held out and didn’t back down to the feds. That policy still has hardly slowed the spread of the mangy wolves. Destructive bastards.
But it screwed,Montana & Idaho from getting them delisted sooner
And they did back down they changed their policy so it would finally be accepted
 
I can respect a lot of your points. With ever increasing limited resources like ungulates if they are going to shoot some to help out so be it. As long as they can do it in a responsible manner that doesn’t jeopardize the population enough to endanger them I can’t really say much on the matter.

I too averaged 50 to 60 coyotes a winter back in my predator hunting days. Now I let all of them live. I can’t bring myself to shoot something I can’t eat and to kill something just because it’s my perceived competition.

I'm starting to soften up on coyotes myself. I don't even shoot some coyotes that I come across now days when I use to kill every coyote I could. Maybe in a few years I'll even quite hunting the all together. For the moment, I have some ranchers that appreciate the work I do at removing coyotes and I really enjoy the challenge of calling them. If I have a chance, I'll shoot a wolf in Idaho or Wyoming this fall/winter.

Even with heavy aerial gunning, I don't think Idaho will ever get the wolf population below 150. Wolves are too tough to kill and true servivors, just like their brother the coyotes are. Man eliminated the wolves with the help of poison and we won't/shouldn't see widespread use of 1080 ever again.
 
Aerial is only effective in parts of the state that are open enough to see them. They need to utilize all effective methods to eradicate them.
Eradicateing them or tryig to just puts,them back on the ESL
There here to stay might as well accept that
Idea and move on
 
I'm starting to soften up on coyotes myself. I don't even shoot some coyotes that I come across now days when I use to kill every coyote I could. Maybe in a few years I'll even quite hunting the all together. For the moment, I have some ranchers that appreciate the work I do at removing coyotes and I really enjoy the challenge of calling them. If I have a chance, I'll shoot a wolf in Idaho or Wyoming this fall/winter.

Even with heavy aerial gunning, I don't think Idaho will ever get the wolf population below 150. Wolves are too tough to kill and true servivors, just like their brother the coyotes are. Man eliminated the wolves with the help of poison and we won't/shouldn't see widespread use of 1080 ever again.
I agree with you. Something about a coyote coming to the call still gets me worked up. Love it!

I couldn’t even imagine how many dollars it would take to get the numbers down to 150. And how would they even know once they got there?
 
Eradicateing them or tryig to just puts,them back on the ESL
There here to stay might as well accept that
Idea and move on
Some of us believe that the Idaho wolf population should be kept close to 150 animals as the Feds originally promised 20+ years ago when they were introduced.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion even if they think Idaho should have 1500 wolves or let the wolf population manage itself by disease and starvation. The Idaho F&G, Federal agents/contractors and hunter kill hundred of wolves in Idaho and the population is still thriving.
 
Some of us believe that the Idaho wolf population should be kept close to 150 animals as the Feds originally promised 20+ years ago when they were introduced.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion even if they think Idaho should have 1500 wolves or let the wolf population manage itself by disease and starvation. The Idaho F&G, Federal agents/contractors and hunter kill hundred of wolves in Idaho and the population is still thriving.
The fact they are thriving must mean there’s plenty of food. Which means the ID Dept fish and game is doing an amazing job!
 
I agree with you. Something about a coyote coming to the call still gets me worked up. Love it!

I couldn’t even imagine how many dollars it would take to get the numbers down to 150. And how would they even know once they got there?

I agree, I don't think it would be easy to get the population close to 150. Even with aerial gunning, professional trappers and 24/7/365 days season with no limit on trapping, killing wolves is not easy.

It is fun watching coyotes come in. Guys that have extensively hunted coyotes have much more respect for them than most people ever will. If only two things survive a nuclear war, it will be cockroaches and coyotes.
 
The fact they are thriving must mean there’s plenty of food. Which means the ID Dept fish and game is doing an amazing job!
And elk populations are still doing very well in most of Idaho. Certain wilderness areas in Idaho had more elk 30+ years ago but places that had fewer elk 30-50 years ago now have many elk.
 
Some of us believe that the Idaho wolf population should be kept close to 150 animals as the Feds originally promised 20+ years ago when they were introduced.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion even if they think Idaho should have 1500 wolves or let the wolf population manage itself by disease and starvation. The Idaho F&G, Federal agents/contractors and hunter kill hundred of wolves in Idaho and the population is still thriving.
There's,a difference between managing them to 150 and full on eradication eradication means,0 wolves
I'm well aware of how many are killed vs how,fast they reproduce thats why I said the're,here to stay might as well get used,to it
 
Last edited:
There's,a difference between managing them to 150 and full on eradication eradication means,0 wolves
I'm well aware of how many are killed vs how,fast they reproduce thats why I said the're,here to stay might as well get used,to it

In my opinion it may be near impossible to keep the population close to 150 for two reasons.

#1 Trying to kill 90% of the wolves will not be easy. Hunters and trappers can't do it. They have been trying for years. I don't know if there is enough $$ and political tolerance to aerial gun that many wolves. As other have pointed out, there are some places in Idaho that it would be very difficult to aerial gun them.

#2 The other big challenge with trying to manage them at 150 is to provide proof to liberals that there are still 150 wolves left in Idaho. Most hunters and ranchers don't want to see the feds take control of Idaho wolf management again.

I think many hunters and ranchers would be thrilled if there were only 500 documented wolves in Idaho by the end of 2021.
 
Hmmm who didn't see,this coming ?
Liberal cancel culture at its finest. Punish political opposition. Just like MLB moving the All Star game from Georgia because Georgia thinks ID for voting is a good idea. Delta CEO also thought ID for voting is discrimination but I can't get on a Delta plane without ID.
 
It’s all making sense, another way to abuse our fish and game funds. SS is write on the flying they will take out the fringe Wolves, but the others in timber or steep terrain will beat them time and time again. Once they start the abusive flying all you guys that think you are going to kill a Wolf won’t Evan see one. The Trappers if good and persistent can take out a Wolf pack. The government hunters,planes,helicopters,electronic calls and bait educate the Wolves in a big way, which makes it very hard for the regular hunter or well skilled hunter to compete or a lot more guys would be flashing Wolf pictures around. Hunters can make a difference but you have to have the drive to go all the way day after day with very little little reward for the amount of time put in.I believe in Wolf management but the Farmers are out of control, where in the F@#$ were they when we were trying to get a hunting season on them, hiding in there Corn Crib.
 
The only way to control wolves to that number is poison. That will never happen today. We would be tied up in court in a heartbeat. Poison is the way they were eradicated is the first place. As some one who has logged a lot of hours hanging out the door of a helicopter doing ADC work , we can kill some that way but not the numbers needed. Everyone should work together and not against one another to take control of this problem. I spent a lot of cold wet days trapping them last year only to come up short.
 
The only way to control wolves to that number is poison. That will never happen today. We would be tied up in court in a heartbeat. Poison is the way they were eradicated is the first place. As some one who has logged a lot of hours hanging out the door of a helicopter doing ADC work , we can kill some that way but not the numbers needed. Everyone should work together and not against one another to take control of this problem. I spent a lot of cold wet days trapping them last year only to come up short.
So you think they should be,completely ERADICATED, from Idaho ? thats how your post comes,across to me
(Poison is the way they were eradicated in the first place)
 
Liberal cancel culture at its finest. Punish political opposition. Just like MLB moving the All Star game from Georgia because Georgia thinks ID for voting is a good idea. Delta CEO also thought ID for voting is discrimination but I can't get on a Delta plane without ID.
I,agree 100%
 
Going back to the bill, it reads "backed by hunters and the state's powerful ranching sector". So they both did work together. The press is really pushing the narrative that it's really about the ranchers and their livestock. I don't know Idaho law, but I would guess that a "problem wolf" can be shot now by F&G or the rancher. I think the bill is still a win-win for those in Idaho that want to hunt wolves.
But I agree, it took poison to wipe them ou the first time, hunting isn't going to control them this time.
Did they ask you if you supported the bill? They didn't ask me and I don't know of a single hunter who was asked whether they "backed" this bill. I do know though that the IWF which is pretty powerful lobby for hunters in ID DID NOT back the bill. Don't believe what politicians write into a bill. They don't know how to speak or write unless they're lying.
 
Why do you assume it’s liberals only? That right there shows how biased you are. But I support the decision to reintroduce wolves back in to Colorado. The majority of CO wanted it. It went to a vote, fair enough. It was close so I would be ok with tabling it for a bit and voting again. Maybe make it where it has to pass by 2/3? Probably not legal though. I also support reintroduction of grizzly bears it that ever comes up.

2). I’m not sure why you’re asking number 2? Of course they are a subspecies. They are smaller for sure. Not sure why you think they are not? They basically look like big coyotes.
You sound like a typical Colorado "conservative" to me(i.e. Liberal) You should change your screen name to "NoLongerSober." Most, if not all, of your points are so absurd I don't even have time to address all of them. Your ignorance is astounding, but that's typical for most liberal bunny-lovers. Aerial gunning is very effective, along with trapping and poisoning. In fact, they are SO EFFECTIVE, they nearly eradicated wolves in the early 20th century. I guess they didn't have trees back then???
Tell you what--you stick with your predator mismanagement in CO and leave ID to manage our own.
 
You sound like a typical Colorado "conservative" to me(i.e. Liberal) You should change your screen name to "NoLongerSober." Most, if not all, of your points are so absurd I don't even have time to address all of them. Your ignorance is astounding, but that's typical for most liberal bunny-lovers. Aerial gunning is very effective, along with trapping and poisoning. In fact, they are SO EFFECTIVE, they nearly eradicated wolves in the early 20th century. I guess they didn't have trees back then???
Tell you what--you stick with your predator mismanagement in CO and leave ID to manage our own.
It’s not a liberal conservative Democrat or republican issue. The majority of Americans want wolves so that’s good enough for me.

I never said aerial gunning wasn’t effective I just brought up some points where it’s more difficult. Do you really think they were heavily shooting wolves back when they wiped them away the first time? No silly it was poison ( like you added in your post to prove a point) that killed a lot of other animals too.

Nice try though, I give it a 3/10.
 
Only way they're gonna make an impact on the population is through aerial eradication. Hunters will never get the population down alone. There aren't enough guys targeting them and they're too tough to kill
I agree completely. People that cry about the year round wolf seasons implemented in the last few years have no idea how smart wolves are and how tough they are to hunt. Hunters will never have a landscape scale impact on wolf populations. We were already conducting aerial gunning, just with federal money. Now we get to use state tax revenue to accomplish the same thing.
 
Did they ask you if you supported the bill? They didn't ask me and I don't know of a single hunter who was asked whether they "backed" this bill. I do know though that the IWF which is pretty powerful lobby for hunters in ID DID NOT back the bill. Don't believe what politicians write into a bill. They don't know how to speak or write unless they're lying.
That's how the article is written. I don't know who backed it.
 
Interesting Idaho is the only state taking this measure. MT and WY are quiet. Most likely idaho hunters just suck at killing something that has half a brain. WY/MT hunters > idaho hunters

Instead of aerial gunners lets send in some montana boys!
 
Did they ask you if you supported the bill? They didn't ask me and I don't know of a single hunter who was asked whether they "backed" this bill. I do know though that the IWF which is pretty powerful lobby for hunters in ID DID NOT back the bill. Don't believe what politicians write into a bill. They don't know how to speak or write unless they're lying.
Also, who supported the re-introduction of wolves to the Yellowstone area? I doubt it was the ranchers and hunters. Maybe the bill should fall on their lap, they caused the problem.
 
Interesting Idaho is the only state taking this measure. MT and WY are quiet. Most likely idaho hunters just suck at killing something that has half a brain. WY/MT hunters > idaho hunters

Instead of aerial gunners lets send in some montana boys!

I can guarantee you that politicians in Wyoming and Montana are watching Idaho to see the political and financial expense it takes to put a serious dent in the wolf population. If Idaho is able to aerial gun 500 or 1000 additional wolves this year I can guarantee you that Wyoming will follow Idaho on aerial gunning. Montana will also likely follow something similar but may not be as aggressive. Historically the politicians in Wyoming have been more anti wolf than Montana.

I really don't like politicians making wildlife decisions and the precedent it sets. I also was very frustrated with the way the Feds kept moving the goal post on the amount of wolves they would mandate in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming. I don't think Canadian wolves should have been released in the greater Yellowstone area. I'm willing to accept the original agreement from 20+ years ago instead of 10X that number which we currently have.
 
If outfitters are allowed to sell aerial gunning wolf hunts in Idaho and clients are willing to pay for the expense, it could cover a large portion of the expense.
 
Brian, your not entirely accurate on MT politics. If it were up to our current and past legislators, MT would not have a wolf problem, grizzly problem, beetle kill problem, buffer zone around Yellowstone, "Wild" horses on BLM and private leases, or many other environmental challenges. MT proceeds with all kinds of sound and scientific legislation at the state level. We have a couple Radical District judges that grant injunctions for every special interest group that pops up. Effectively terminating timber sales, postponing wolf/grizzly hunting, extending predator safety zones, and so on. Then, as with all sparsely populated western states that receive massive federal funding for schools/roads/conservation (Pittman-Robertson), the Feds flex muscle, but eventually get wishy washy and kick it back to the state pending more environmental assessments. Science says proceed, and our legislature and state/govt officials try to, only to have another organization file a new injunction which is granted by the same Radical judges. It's a cycle of insanity that will only stop when the Feds replace or remove Radical judges, stop threatening to withhold non-related monies to an issue, and make special interest groups post a bond equal to the economic impact to a state for their legal actions. They need accountability, bonds would be forfeited if they can't definitively prove their "science" within the courts. A small number of people with deep pockets and allies in powerful positions would rather see the west burn and predators do the hunting than for any of us to live and make a living out here. (I am for prescribed burning in critical habitat areas for specific species. I'm also not opposed to kicking 90%+ of Fed influence out of individual states).
 
PS: Our previous Governor was not of much use. He pandered to D.C. , National Special Interest groups as well as minority interest in his quest to become President. Joke.
 
Brian, your not entirely accurate on MT politics.

I'm not saying many politicians in MT wouldn't take agressive measures. I'm just saying that historically politicians in Wyoming have be more anti wolf than politicians in MT. Wyoming politicians have also been more anti wolf than Idaho politicians.
 
I'm not saying many politicians in MT wouldn't take agressive measures. I'm just saying that historically politicians in Wyoming have be more anti wolf than politicians in MT. Wyoming politicians have also been more anti wolf than Idaho politicians.
I can agree. State politicians can be a nuisance for sure. They are a smaller problem than Radical judges (either direction) that think they can legislate from their bench without accountability, and massive amount of "environmental" dollars pouring in through out of state groups. And now they're just flat moving here, I don't blame them, but damn their hypocrisy as they pay ridiculous prices to build their riverfront/mountainside home out in nature, displacing nature, while telling me cow farts and irrigation are screwing the planet. Eventually followed by, may I come take some photos on your property?
 
I can already see the planes and helicopters buzzing around the winter range, just what our wintering herds need. I truly believe in Wolf hunting but this is wrong the Farmer Legislators went around the Fish and Game and the Sportsman. The big problem is the Farmers should not be managing our wildlife with our money.
 
I can already see the planes and helicopters buzzing around the winter range, just what our wintering herds need. I truly believe in Wolf hunting but this is wrong the Farmer Legislators went around the Fish and Game and the Sportsman. The big problem is the Farmers should not be managing our wildlife with our money.
So, the group, Idaho For Wildlife, is an agricultural organization? I see the Cattle Association supports it, but the article doesn't say they sponsored or wrote the bill.
 
I can guarantee you that politicians in Wyoming and Montana are watching Idaho to see the political and financial expense it takes to put a serious dent in the wolf population. If Idaho is able to aerial gun 500 or 1000 additional wolves this year I can guarantee you that Wyoming will follow Idaho on aerial gunning. Montana will also likely follow something similar but may not be as aggressive. Historically the politicians in Wyoming have been more anti wolf than Montana.

I really don't like politicians making wildlife decisions and the precedent it sets. I also was very frustrated with the way the Feds kept moving the goal post on the amount of wolves they would mandate in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming. I don't think Canadian wolves should have been released in the greater Yellowstone area. I'm willing to accept the original agreement from 20+ years ago instead of 10X that number which we currently have.
Montana has already started following idahos lead
 
I hate this bill. It’s bad for lots of reasons mentioned above but I will add more. I hunt Idaho every year and I always get a wolf tag. They are cheap 30 bucks plus you can use your deer tag on a wolf in a pinch. Idaho game and fish sells lots of wolf tags and most hunters I know love to have that option to kill an additional trophy while in the field. Now who is going to buy a wolf tag when there aren’t going to be barely any around. Plus IDFG has to pay out big dollars for the contracts. So they loose money for other things two ways. I love the wolves they are native, they belong and they make the herds healthier. I crack up listening to the gloom and doom Colorado anti wolf crowd. Filled all 3 of my Montana elk tags last year. The sky is falling so fast Montana upped our yearly elk take from 2 to 3 and oh yeah our wolf population is the highest it’s ever been.
 
Interesting Idaho is the only state taking this measure. MT and WY are quiet. Most likely idaho hunters just suck at killing something that has half a brain. WY/MT hunters > idaho hunters

Instead of aerial gunners lets send in some montana boys!
More proof of what an idiot you are. So now they only have half a brain?? Only one with half a brain is you.
 
It’s not a liberal conservative Democrat or republican issue. The majority of Americans want wolves so that’s good enough for me.

I never said aerial gunning wasn’t effective I just brought up some points where it’s more difficult. Do you really think they were heavily shooting wolves back when they wiped them away the first time? No silly it was poison ( like you added in your post to prove a point) that killed a lot of other animals too.

Nice try though, I give it a 3/10.
Do you really think they were dragging carcasses laced with Strychnine into the backcountry of wilderness areas to get hard-to-reach wolves??? No silly, it was AERIAL GUNNING!! Just more proof that you have no idea what you're talking about. I give it a 1/10 which is average for most liberals.
 
More proof of what an idiot you are. So now they only have half a brain?? Only one with half a brain is you.
Don’t be upset because Idaho hunters can’t get it done. Heck your most famous wolf hunter in Idaho killed two German Shepards thinking they were wolves. ????
 
Do you really think they were dragging carcasses laced with Strychnine into the backcountry of wilderness areas to get hard-to-reach wolves??? No silly, it was AERIAL GUNNING!! Just more proof that you have no idea what you're talking about. I give it a 1/10 which is average for most liberals.
I see you’re upset and I apologize if you not knowing what you’re talking about is causing your heart rate to go up.


This is going to blow your mind but believe it or not they dropped poison out of planes. Oh. My. God.

Calm down you liberal, I would hate to see ID lose another one due to unnecessary stress.
 
So you think they should be,completely ERADICATED, from Idaho ? thats how your post comes,across to me
(Poison is the way they were eradicated in the first place)
No sir Mr Ultimag that is not what I said. I said in the past that was how they were controlled. I also said in this day and age it will never happen. My stance is that they need to be managed with science and not by bunnyhuggers. Do we have to many wolves ? Yes. Do we need to kill them all ? No.
 
Plus IDFG has to pay out big dollars for the contracts. So they loose money for other things two ways. I love the wolves they are native, they belong and they make the herds healthier.

Don't tell many Idaho hunters or ranchers your opinion on this if you don't want to make them mad. Many already don't like nonresidents and you will just give residents another reason to dislike nonresident hunters. Even if the aerial gunning is highly successful and they can kill 1000 by the end of this year, there will still be plenty of wolves for guys that want to target them.

A conservative estimate puts Idaho wolves at 1500 animals for the last couple years. How many deer, elk, moose, sheep, cattle are required to support only 1500 wolves? You may be happy to share the wildlife and livestock with an excessive number of wolves but many of us are not.

Many others, including myself, would be very happy to see less than 500 wolves in Idaho. The original agreement from 20+ years ago was 150 wolves/10 packs in Idaho. I don't see anything wrong with Idaho wanting that original agreement to be be followed.
 
No sir Mr Ultimag that is not what I said. I said in the past that was how they were controlled. I also said in this day and age it will never happen. My stance is that they need to be managed with science and not by bunnyhuggers. Do we have to many wolves ? Yes. Do we need to kill them all ? No.
I,agree and I realized,after I posted it I misunderstood what you meant a(wouldn't let me edit or,delete it ) my apolgies,
 
Many others, including myself, would be very happy to see less than 500 wolves in Idaho. The original agreement from 20+ years ago was 150 wolves/10 packs in Idaho. I don't see anything wrong with Idaho wanting that original agreement to be be followed.
It was never meant to be followed its politics tell them what they want to hear then change the rules,after it passes
 
Successful hunters are successful hunters. The old adage that 10% of hunters harvest 90% of the game. Some want/need wildlife populations bursting at the seams, or extremely limited draw, to allow them success. That's ok in some areas, just not most areas. We all have different experience, skill sets and abilities. I am not advocating for termination, but you can't have abundant ungulate populations with abundant predator populations and expect hunter opportunity or quality of a hunt to stay static or increase. Farmers/ranchers could be the sportsman's greatest advocate and ally if jealousy and negative personal opinions were checked at the door by both sides.
 
Successful hunters are successful hunters. The old adage that 10% of hunters harvest 90% of the game. Some want/need wildlife populations bursting at the seams, or extremely limited draw, to allow them success. That's ok in some areas, just not most areas. We all have different experience, skill sets and abilities. I am not advocating for termination, but you can't have abundant ungulate populations with abundant predator populations and expect hunter opportunity or quality of a hunt to stay static or increase. Farmers/ranchers could be the sportsman's greatest advocate and ally if jealousy and negative personal opinions were checked at the door by both sides.
You also can't have abundant ungulate.population with poor or dissapearing habitat/food supply
Fwiw Idaho's,elk population is growing even with 1500 wolves, as far as mule deer their decline is happening all over the west includeing Colorado which has what 8&10 wolves,?
Blameing wolves,enyirely for declineing populations of engulates,without looking ,at, other factors doesn't cut it
 
You also can't have abundant ungulate.population with poor or dissapearing habitat/food supply
Fwiw Idaho's,elk population is growing even with 1500 wolves, as far as mule deer their decline is happening all over the west includeing Colorado which has what 8&10 wolves,?
Blameing wolves,enyirely for declineing populations of engulates,without looking ,at, other factors doesn't cut it
I agree. I never said wolves are the only problem, and I don't blame wolves entirely. Subdivision of prime habitat, inability to divert stream water outside stream banks to displace grazing of all kinds off riprarian areas, and a let it die and burn policy have all added to decreased habitat and stress on wildlife along with large predator predation. Sustainable habitat is shrinking and pressure of all kinds is increasing. When an ecosystem burns, the resource for one diminishes, but increases for another. Other posts I've made advocate for prescribed burns in critical habitat for specific species. My opinion is that BLM and State Trust land of little use to wildlife/agriculture should be sold/traded for subdivision protecting bottom or mountain ground for wildlife. Here they put rattlesnake/prickly pear into "wilderness study" as if it will ever amount to Lewis and Clark days. Grow houses on that instead of where deer/elk/Antelope calve/fawn. Increase grazing rates to pay for conservation easements to keep subdivision off prime private lands. Trade 10:1, or whatever it takes if you against sale of public lands, public for private to protect critical wildlife habitat. 10,000 public acres with 10 Antelope isn't as beneficial as 1,000 public with pheasants/deer/Antelope/elk that the public can access and wildlife can flourish. No easy answers, but there are options.
 

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos

Idaho Hunting Guides & Outfitters

Bearpaw Outfitters

Idaho Deer & Elk Allocation Tags, Plus Bear, Bison, Lion, Moose, Turkey and Montana Prairie Dogs.

Urge 2 Hunt

We focus on trophy elk, mule deer, whitetail, bear, lion and wolf hunts and spend hundreds of hours scouting.

Jokers Wild Outdoors

Trophy elk, whitetail, mule deer, antelope, bear and moose hunts. 35k acres of private land.

Back
Top Bottom